Monday, June 1, 2015

Gentrification: Renovating Aging Neighborhoods, or Moving Out Minorities to Make Room for Whites?

Abstract

Gentrification
for the last thirty-plus years has signaled what some have called a much needed
improvement and revitalization of poor urban communities. However, this has not
come baring tidings of good joy. Communities that were once home to African
Americans and minorities just trying to work and earn livable wages are now
being dislocated. Local government and politicians are using urban development
and renewal as the reasoning for the change. Furthermore, in the name of
eroding roads, and underperforming and obsolete infrastructure these community
members are being sold a lie. In reality, as told by a landlord in Brooklyn,
New York City, having poor black people in properties causes the value of the
properties to go down tremendously. In an effort to infuse the tax base and
improve the value of these properties, you have to replace them with affluent
white people. This is what gentrification ultimately does, moves out the poor
minorities and replaces them with yuppies, guitar toting whites, who are more
than willing to pay twice the rent so long as there are no black tenants.
Moreover, gentrification is not only destroying and further segregating poor
minorities; it is destroying the very fabric that makes these communities
unique. Local stores are closing their doors, unable to now afford the
expensive rents caused by this urban renewal. Ultimately, gentrification is
continuing, regardless of the consequences. Urban renewal and renovation is
spreading across the country, displacing millions of people who end up where
they started, poor deplorable communities void of resources.

Gentrification: Renovating Aging Neighborhoods, or

Moving Out Minorities to Make Room for Whites?

If
one were to go back in time to an urban area like the Mid-City area of Los
Angeles, the south side of Chicago, or even Brooklyn, New York and Washington
D.C., these neighborhoods would have been seen in some instances as
dilapidated, and in desperate need of an influx of funding and resources. To
say that negative entropy had set in would be an understatement. Cities looked
for ways to get businesses to relocate there to infuse the tax base, and
generate revenue, but gangs, and violence, albeit a small percentage of what
actually goes on, kept these potential businesses out. With the socio-economic
levels in these neighborhoods all but below poverty levels, struggling, and an
educational system seriously underperforming, it seemed that there was no
answer. How could cities turn around these urban communities, and give the
people there a chance at a better quality of life, all while adding value to
the city. Enter Gentrification. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus
defines gentrification as the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying
the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that
often displaces poorer residents. While gentrification on the surface seems
like an long term answer, and fix to these problems, it is short sighted, and
ultimately does a disservice to the people who were in need of help in the
first place.

In
the purview, and spirit of Americanism, and that is giving all citizens, no
matter the race or ethnicity a chance at the “American Dream,” who is
gentrification really helping? Let us look into this further, and through
research, it will be shown how calculated politicians and cities were in
removing the powerless, and replacing them with the powerful. In History in a Time of Gentrification, George
Derek Musgrove (2014) in his review of Building
the Body Politic: Power and Urban Space in Washington, DC, went on to say
that our nation’s capital was in the process of drastically changing, and not
necessarily for the betterment of its citizens. (p. 1155) Musgrove (2014) wrote
that, “Nearly two decades of white in-migration and black out-migration,
facilitated by federal lending practices and pro-development city policy, have
made Washington’s population younger, whiter, and wealthier” (p. 1155). Prior
to this happening, this same city wanted and needed revitalization, but through
calculated measures, and politics it was decided that the people of color in
these neighborhoods, were no more in need of help, than the people they were
replacing them with. Again, is this gentrification, or just simply a fancy word
to move out minorities and move in whites? Washington DC wanted the area to be
revitalized and re-energized as the capital of the United States. However, this
revitalization did not include offering better paying jobs, so that in turn
neighborhoods would flourish and property values increase.

Instead there has been much study on the
values of property when said poor minorities, mostly black, live in these
neighborhoods. David R. Harris (1999) in Property
values drop when blacks move in, because...": Racial and socioeconomic
determinants of neighborhood desirability, assessed that,

…With
respect to the national market, property values do respond to racial
composition. Housing loses at least 16 percent of its value when located in
neighborhoods that are more than 10 percent black. [Also]… in
neighborhoods with a high percentage of black residents is less valuable not
because of an aversion to blacks per se, but rather because people prefer
affluent, well-educated neighbors, and these traits are more common among
whites than blacks. (p. 476)

What this study has shown, along with how
most cities deal with their poor urban communities, is that when large
communities blacks are concentrated in a singular neighborhood, the value of
said neighborhood goes down. This then becomes a dead tax base, and the local
government is forced to take action. This action however, while addressing the
dead tax base by infusing it with mostly affluent whites, still neglects the
root of the problem in the first place. Nevertheless, gentrification continues
to be the driving force behind improving urban communities, displacing the
poor, and sending them packing.

Washington
DC had been seeing this happen for some time, with the majority of the black
residents being displaced and moved out. But again, why? If these neighborhoods
were so deplorable, why not just create jobs, and a sense of urban renewal?
Were black citizens not worthy of the same revitalization efforts that would
follow once they were ousted? This indeed was part of a bigger plan, a plan
change the political base, and a change that would transform the political
landscape. Racist perhaps, but this was not a plan that would be enacted so
soon as to arouse the suspicion of those being impacted. What the poor blacks
knew was that the area was being changed, roads were being built, and that they
simply had to go. In her research, Sabiyha Prince (2014) in Urban Anthropology: African Americans and
Gentrification in Washington, D.C. : Race, Class and Social Justice in the
Nation’s Capital, interviewed and talked with many people who were long
standing residents of the District, who witnessed the coming change first hand.
This dismantling of their neighborhoods created a distrust and Prince wrote
that, “Distrust of top-down “improvements” has been nurtured in vulnerable
communities where residents have seen the converging, profit-driven efforts of
politicians, developers, and banks in their midst” (p. 103). The
disenfranchisement of these neighborhoods was clearly a purposeful action all
in the mighty name of renewal and development that would not include the
African Americans’ who were at the receiving end of government’s proverbial
whip.

This
process did not happen overnight. Gentrification for all of its subliminal glory
began slowly. With certain communities of color struggling, it would seem that
the democratic process would prevail, and the outstretched hand of equal
opportunity for advancement would also prevail. On the contrary, increasing
property values, and rejuvenating the tax base was gentrification’s main
concern. Again looking at the research of Sabiyha Prince (2014), she stated
that gentrification was preceded by the disinvestment of these communities, and
she looked to the riots of 1968 for a clear of example of this, arguing that
after the devastation, no one was campaigning to rebuild the homes and
businesses in the areas mostly home to African Americans. (p. 104). In one interview,
Prince (2014) learned that it was just easier to dislocate, than to relocate.
(p. 104). Dislocation because of deteriorating roads, and inferior
infrastructure was an easier sale than outright saying; we have to make room
for affluent white Americans.

Washington
DC was not the only place that this was occurring, Urban Gentrification was
taking place all over the country, and the same narrative followed. Again, whom
was this really helping? Brooklyn, New York City was also experiencing the same
fate as Washington DC. Brooklyn had long been synonymous with the poor in New
York State. Even if you were not a New Yorker, from Florida to Washington
State, images of poor blackness was conjured up when the city was mentioned.
That socioeconomic status was further glorified in rap music in the late to
early 1990s. However, as of late, Brooklyn is no longer the Brooklyn of old. As
told in a News One Editorial by Christina Coleman (2015), traditional African
American boroughs such as Bushwick and Bed-Stuy, are now be rebranded to
attract young white perspective renters and buyers. In looking at both
Washington DC and Brooklyn on the surface, this does not look like it has the
residents in these urban communities best interests at heart. Again, whom is
gentrification truly helping? DW Gibson (2015) posted an excerpt from his book,
The Edge Becomes the Center: An Oral
History of Gentrification in the 21st Century, in the New York Magazine,
The Daily Intelligencer where he discussed gentrification in the predominantly
black boroughs of New York City. Gibson interviewed a Brooklyn
landlord/redeveloper who with his associates bought old derelict, ruined
properties in these boroughs that housed black tenants who paid $1,200 to
$1,500 in rent. This landlord, as told by Gibson, knew that black tenants
brought the property values down. The landlord would then pay the black poor
tenants to move out, and replace them with white “yuppies” who were looking to
rent. The landlord would charge these white tenants double the rent; in return,
the property values would skyrocket. Gibson wrote as told by the landlord

If
there’s a black tenant in the house—in every building we have, I put in white
tenants. They want to know if black people are going to be living there. So
sometimes we have ten apartments and everything is white, and then all of the
sudden one tenant comes in with one black roommate, and they don’t like it.
They see black people and get all riled up, they call me: “We’re not paying
that much money to have black people live in the building.”
(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/grim-racist-methods-of-one-brooklyn-landlord.html).

Gentrification as seen by this
landlord, is about the exodus of poor blacks, and the advent of whites
relocating into these areas. As a national narrative, the same can be said
about gentrification all over the country. Urban renewal, rebranded and sold as
making the community and city better, meanwhile the citizens being exiled,
could no longer afford the new developments once constructed. The South Side of
Chicago, and Mid-City Los Angeles are experiencing these same fates. These
areas that were once enclaves of urban enrichment, are now home to white
Americans with half-million dollar and up properties, and the redistribution of
wealth complete.

Gentrification
is not only displacing millions of black Americans and poor minorities. This
process of urban renewal and revitalization is also hurting the very
communities it is intended to help. What happens to the small mom-and-pop
stores that are unable to afford the now ultra-expensive rents in the
neighborhoods they have called home for decades. Even in looking at what makes
America great, our ever-changing vibrant cultures are also being hurt. Allan
Edson (2001) wrote that, “For people already living in these communities the
result is rising rents and home prices, and the loss of their unique social
fabric and culture” (p. 30). Looking at gentrification, what are the costs,
clearly displacing minorities out of their neighborhoods, and changing the
social urban fabric is not of major importance. Increasing the tax base as to
increase the revenue for the government seems to be the overriding factor. Even
though it has been shown in study after the study, the social costs far
outweigh the monetary costs. However this is simply overlooked by the
proponents of gentrification, and urban communities are continuing to be
rebranded to attract young white middle and upper class affluent white
citizenry. Again is gentrification about renewing aging communities or moving
in whites, and further segregating communities. T. William Lester (2014) in The Long Term Employment Impact of
Gentrification in the 1990s stated that, “However, critics of
gentrification highlight the social costs of neighborhood change and point out
that displacement of low and moderate income households exacerbates affordable
housing problems, destroys long-standing social ties, and can lead to a
re-segregation of urban housing markets” (p. 80). So while gentrification
enters in and rejuvenates a community, the long term and permanent social costs
are devastating, proving further that this only benefits those who could afford
it, the white elite.

Conclusively
looking at the question, gentrification: renovating aging neighborhoods, or moving
out minorities to make room for whites? What is clear is that since the
beginning, in the 1980s, gentrification has been the ultimate wrecking crew, in
the name of urban renewal; communities have seen their landscape change
drastically. From vibrant communities of color, to communities filled with
yuppies and middle to upper class affluent whites, what these communities once
represented are no more. Reasons such as eroding roads, and subpar
infrastructure, governments are selling a dream of urban revitalization only to
those who can afford it. Sadly, instead of creating that same revitalization
for those already living there, and giving them livable wage jobs, they are
being forced out, and segregated into even more poorer communities, with the
same problems that existed prior to their exile; disenfranchised tax base, and
underperforming schools, that exacerbate the problems even further. To answer
the question posed throughout this research project, gentrification is about
renovating aging neighborhoods, and unfortunately the research has also shown
that in order to achieve this revitalization, and wealthier tax base, you
replace the poor black community members with affluent white citizens.

While
proponents of gentrification would call this race baiting, the ever-changing
landscapes of these communities prove the contrary. One would be hard pressed
not to see the proof when examined closely, and that is these urban communities
are being displaced, and no longer urban. With this being said, the choice for
correcting this urban obliteration remains with the politicians and local
government. Understanding that the social-costs supersede that of monetary
costs, they must decide if preserving the unique fabric of the community is
worth it, or is it easier to just bulldoze down communities. John Betancur
(2011) in Gentrification and Community
Fabric in Chicago had this to say about the costs of urban gentrification,
“The situation seems especially challenging for racial minorities who, like
European ethnics, developed place-based social fabrics for self- help,
incorporation and advancement but, unlike them, were deterred by the challenges
of race and, most recently, urban restructuring via gentrification” (p. 383). Understanding
these costs are what matters to these displaced community members, keeping
their communities together, and providing that same revitalization, along with
jobs is what is needed. While moving in the affluent is the quick fix, ultimately,
relocating the poor and disenfranchised is not going to make that problem go
away, and eventually it is going to rear its head and it will have to be
addressed.